ast, not the future.Invoking antitrust jurisprudence is particularly ill suited for analyzing Microsoft and the connected computing industry. The laws are hopelessly ill equipped to comprehend the nature of the digital economy. The Sherman and Clayton Acts were crafted to address the static era of massive, long-lasting industrial infrastructure and mass durable-goods markets. The existing law does not address a dynamic economy where markets and market leadership can arise and disappear within 18 months or less. Moore's Law and the Law of the Installed Base (that when technological change occurs, whoever has an installed base of customers is at greater risk than a new entrant is) require a new approach.18Findings of Fact and Conclusions of LawThe suite against Microsoft that began with allegations of monopoly in 1997 was decided by the Honorable Thomas Penfield Jackson in the United States Supreme Court. Justice Jackson handed down his Memorandum and Order along with the Final Judgement on June 7, 2000. Charging documents stated that Microsoft was in violation of the Sherman Act, Sections 1 and 2, as well as various state laws. Finding in the favor of the plaintiffs, Justice Jackson determined that a proposed form of final judgment would mandate both conduct modification and structural reorganization by the defendant when fully implemented.19 The Memorandum continues to cite the Microsoft claims that the proposed remedies were "draconian" and "unprecedented."Indeed, Microsoft felt that additional discovery was warranted and that a second trial be held. Owing to a delay of five months by the court in its entry of the Conclusion of Law, and the enlistment of mediation, however, the Court rejected Microsofts stand. Microsoft took the position that it was surprised by the decision and needed ample time to act on the Courts Order. Since Microsofts cases had been before the Court and occupied much of its attention for the past two year...